Apples and oranges. Actually, insurgent has some merits over terrorist. Insurgent implies someone is fighting against the government or authority. Terrorist doesn't necessarily mean the fight is against the government. Meanwhile, terrorist suggests that the tactics used are supposed to make people afraid and back down. Insurgent doesn't really suggest any form of tactic. So it's sort of a push on that one.
But I realize that you want the media to slant the news your way, rather than the other way. I'd just as soon get facts and slant my own brain. I don't need anyone to slant it for me. If a roadside bomb blows up some troops, is that terrorism? Who is supposed to be terrorized by that? The marines? I thought terrorism was usually when you attack a civilian target, like a pizza shop or a bus or a building. So really, if it's IEDs designed to hit our troops, to me, those are insurgents, not terrorists. If they blow up a Mosque or a coffee shop, that's terrorism. They describe different tactics.
Suicide bomber, likewise, describes tactics. Homicide bomber, describes practically nothing.
So are insurgents/terrorists merely innocent civilians when they're between attacks and have some free time on their hands?
Terrorists and insurgents are the same thing if both are rebelling against a civilian government!